Member Info for Boyobach

Ultimately it wasn’t a good week for any of my usual group of comparisons with G:
https://invst.ly/tk5uz
With OP holding about level, the UK contingent fell back by 4-6% from the previous Friday. G probably suffered more as a result of its own success - the good news from DNO on Monday did raise expectations ahead of the T&O which proved unable to keep the momentum going. Profit taking was bound to ensue and the pull-back happened to coincide with a more general, covid fuelled, market fall and, because it was then falling more steeply than the rest, G overshot most of the others, with only GKP doing marginally worse. It’ll be disappointing to see G continue down to 150 or less, as we’d hoped to see it at no less than 160, but I have to confess that it would give me a top-up opportunity I wasn’t expecting. From a chart pov I’m now eyeing 143 as a possibility. Since G has proved what it is capable of doing if Brent averages $55 from here and production ramps up along with revenue, it seems as low a risk proposition as I’m likely to find in current circumstances. https://invst.ly/tk5z8

As indicators charts are always relevant. PFC has spent the last five days in a well defined down-trend and the sp is demonstrably falling until it breaks out of that. If and when that happens convincingly it may be worth taking a punt but, until then, the odds are not favourable. In fact, Friday’s price action indicated a stronger tendency for the price to move downwards rather than up. For those who are already underwater with PFC there is little point in adding unless/until the bottom is fully established - why would you compound your losses and ‘average down’ with a share that you can see is still falling? https://invst.ly/tk4vb

On an even more cautionary note, veteran PFC holders will know that the sp has a track record of sharp falls (marked in the next chart) from which it has never fully recovered. The prospect of PFC returning to 170 may be justified by assumed fundamentals but it cannot be viewed with certainty. https://invst.ly/tk4xu

Paddyboy asked: Where's this 50p stuff coming from?....
I think that was a typo by David Coulter.
I was referring to the massive drop (to £3.50) triggered by news of the SFO at the time https://invst.ly/tj-01

Someone said: this afternoon: ‘sub £1 is below the bollinger band. SP is already oversold…..’

Really? https://invst.ly/tjznp

And, by way of a check, does this 15 minute chart of the last five days contain a trend that appears about to change for the better?
https://invst.ly/tjzoe

It's quite possible the decline will level out on Monday but there's nothing here that would point to that conclusion. Indeed the price has been testing down rather than up this afternoon.

A classic and text-book struggle for the (red) line: https://invst.ly/tjsi3 (15' ticks)
This isn't going back up for sure until it stays above the red and recaptures 111

who said it was going to be a decent week on Monday?
Dunno bunks - that was a long time ago.
Anyway, January's 'Underlying Progress' all wiped out for now. Back to lockdown hibernation until March probably....
At least H got a few bucks out of it.
GLA

Yes - May 2017?
Yes. Here’s an old story, published by HuffPost, for recent PFC shareholders who’ve never heard of Peter Warner. If it was true, what was the final outcome and legacy? DYOR:
https://www.theage.com.au/interactive/2016/the-bribe-factory/day-2/the-dirty-execs.html

The landing craft has splashed down as expected…. but there is, of course, always the risk of sinking if the impact is too severe….https://invst.ly/tji1y

Do bear in mind that, at the last time I checked, for each AT ‘sell’ there is an AT ‘buy’ and vice versa. The online platforms apparently assign a single ‘buy’ or ‘sell’ indication according to an algorithm based on the transaction price relative to the mid value and this can give a very misleading impression as half the ATs are missing. So, the total number of sells in recent days could be significantly understated.

Given that 106 has twice previously established an historic low for PFC, and these usually exercise a force similar to gravity, I’d suggest that anyone perplexed by this week’s price action should maybe avoid a career in astrophysics:
https://invst.ly/tjf8-

The 'highs' are, from a trend pov, still getting lower (I always watch the highs to assess a falling price and the lows to assess a rising price) but there were signs of a reversal for a period yesterday. I'm not expecting much of a 'bounce' - more like a 4-6 month recovery to 170. The most obvious bottom is at the previous level of 106. https://invst.ly/tjdde

RDS jumped ahead of OP in the first week of 2021, but the gap has been closing since then: https://invst.ly/tjbvn and would place RDS around 1380 today if it closed completely.

For G to advance materially it must obviously strengthen against OP. This chart, a '15 minute' view of that relationship since the start of the year, shows that underlying progress is being made beneath the sp volatility: https://invst.ly/tjb94

CSDI, regarding your ‘averaging down’ story, here’s the specific thing that stood out for me:

You bought a tranche of RDSB at 2688p in July 2018. All well and good.
Much later, you added a 2nd tranche at 2061p in Jan 2020 to, in your words, ‘average down’.

Now, adding that second tranche because you were convinced that they were a good investment in their own right at that point in time would have been absolutely logical. But I suggest that to add them purely in order to ‘average down’ would not have been.

The fact that you already owned some RDS at a higher price should not have somehow made the second batch a more compelling investment choice and it should not have influenced you. It may have given you a ‘feel good’ factor to see your average RDS price much lower after the second tranche was purchased but, mathematically, the profit and loss position on each batch is not influenced by the others. For convenience and accounting purposes we may average them together and, hopefully, some batches make a profit to offset the losses of others but the fact remains that each share purchased contributes a profit or loss according to the price difference between buying and selling.

If you average highly profitable shares with loss-makers then you simply average out the performance. The more times you ‘average down’ in this process the worse the overall performance will ultimately be.

An encouraging pause int the pullback so far today - it'll be interesting to see what the closing price is.
They say it's the lows you should watch to judge if an sp is rising...
https://invst.ly/tix-5

Cheers Nightpusher.
We both need similar luck with PFC if it to repay us for our trouble!
I've been too quick to average down in the past - it's such an easy trap to carelessly fall into. I'm not saying we should never do it but neither should we kid ourselves that it's a shrewd method of progressively building a holding when it patently isn't.

Ha!
And hopefully slim pickings as a reward! (says he who regrets not setting a stop at 175).
As H says, G is basically back to last Tuesday's level with a similar market value against OP (just under 3x).
Looks like we are back to being reliant on OP for any lift.
Still, it's been almost entertaining by lockdown standards.

Rangor: I've deflected my gambling interest in TGP towards PFC for the moment and bought a few today after concluding that a 50% gain there might be more imminent (if it happens at all) than with TGP. I'm also trying to be much more disciplined in order to minimise the times I find myself 'averaging down' (did a long post about that over on RDSb at the weekend). ATB

Barclays highlighted that [with] a new chief executive on the way, [it] was unsurprising that the company presented a cautious outlook.

I think it makes perfect sense with the obvious missing word and typo fixed.

Good posts here - thanks. particularly to SEA7
I've re-invested in PFC today after a year's gap, albeit at a much reduced level. Despite the positive comments here it is still very much speculative in my view and I don't expect to recoup the entirety of my loss.
I haven't followed the SFO case at all meanwhile but, unless I've missed a report along the way, it appears that they never got one of the ex-PFC big fish they were pursuing. I do wonder if they've given up on that because, if so, the whole saga might be drawing to a conclusion. GLA